Posted
by
Soulskillon Tuesday August 12, 2014 @02:26PM
from the can't-you-go-back-to-not-passing-legislation dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Phil Plait reports that a trio of U.S. Congressmen are asking NASA to investigate what they call "an epidemic of anomalies" at SpaceX. They sent a memo (PDF) demanding that SpaceX be held accountable to taxpayers for mission delays stemming from the development of new rockets. Plait notes, "[A]s a contractor, the rules are different for them than they would be if NASA themselves built the rockets, just as the rules are for Boeing or any other contractor. In fact, as reported by Space News, NASA didn't actually pay for the development of the Falcon 9; Elon Musk did." He adds, "Another reason this is silly is that every rocket ever made has undergone problems; they are fiendishly complex machines and no design has ever gotten from the drafting board to the launch pad without issues. Sure, SpaceX has experienced launch delays and other problems, but the critical thing to remember is that those problems are noted, assessed, and fixed sometimes within hours or minutes." Plait accuses the congressmen of trying to bury private spaceflight under red tape in order to protect established industries in their own states.

It's always amused me when people are hypocrites. It also always saddens me when these hypocrites are in a position to do something terrible because of their hypocrisy.

It also strikes me as specious, at best, that they're complaining about a project that's arguably the most timely and successful-out-the-gate in the history of the American space program, if not humanity's combined space programs.

But I guess that when one can afford to buy a senator, one makes that senator bark whatever line one wants regardless of its veracity or even sense.

I thought ULA convincing the government to advance purchase 2 years of launches (2billion dollars) a month before SpaceX qualified their rockets was an accurate picture of how Lockheed and Boeing intend to compete which is they intend to use government to prevent SpaceX from competing.

You don't have to RTFA to know that this is just about Pork Barrel spending.

The guy behind this is Sen. Richard Shelby from Alabama. Where does ULA have it's factory? That's right, Alabama [madeinalabama.com].

So now, we have the Alabama congressman Mo Brooks jumping on the bandwagon. Where to those two Colorado guys come from? Oh, yeah they represent me, in Centennial Colorado, where ULA happens to have its headquarters.

Fuck these guys. They're holding the whole country back for corporate welfare. Of course, when poor folks need a hand...

I have posted before [slashdot.org] that there is evidence that ULA has initiated a propaganda campaign against Space X. From what I have read, Shockey Scofield Solutions, which is a PR firm hired by ULA is tightly linked with congressional lobbyist culture...they know how to pull particular strings in Washington. This seems to have their fingerprints all over it.

We should really be aware of the reason why ULA was formed in the first place. A few years ago the government decided to bring competition into launch procurement, by creating a bidding process. The dominant/only American players, Boeing and Lockheed responded by merging their launch products into the United Launch Alliance so that in almost all cases there would be only one bidder for American launches. This resulted in an increase in launch costs.

Enter SpaceX, which looks to be a real competitor. ULA can't absorb Space X, so they seem to be doing everything they can to sabotage them instead. From proposing financial rules on bidding companies that are biased against smaller players, to focussing on trivial "anomolies" that put uncertainty in the (simple) minds of Congressional lawmakers, to floating fanciful speculative stories about future vaporware "Space Planes" that will leapfrog SpaceX's cheaper launch platforms, to calling Elon Musk a corporate welfare bum (as if ULA wasn't the queen of queens of welfare queens).

The simple fact is that Space X has taken older proven technology and molded it into what promises to be a robust and reliable launch platform. ULA knows this, and the only thing they know how to do is to make this a gutter fight. They are despicable.

You don't honestly think that contract was totally preplanned for years and that the government always purchases rockets in blocks that large do you?

IMO that contract originated because ULA went to their government handlers and cajoled them into releasing the RFP before SpaceX could qualify. It is my understanding that the government does buy rockets in groups, but a 2 year 20 rocket group is unheard of and that this was the largest rocket purchase the government has ever made. ULA's salespeople will have personal relationships with all the contracting people in government. My bet is that ULA hoped by locking SpaceX out of the market for 2 years they would go bankrupt before they could go after another contract.

There should be a massive investigation going on for how that contract originated, why it's so large and what the relationships are between the ULA people and the government contracting officers.

It's easier to innovate while standing on the shoulders of giants. Without the space program there wouldn't be any technology available for SpaceX to build upon.

Even if there were no government involvement at all, including military funding of ballistic missiles, you would still have the amateur rocketry groups. For example, a considerable bit of the development of hybrid motors was done by amateur groups over forty years. And those groups tended to focus on hybrids because the more popular liquid-fueled rockets were vastly dominated by government projects.

Get over your Libertarian delusions.

Complaining about blatant hypocrisy and the buying of politicians is "Libertarian"? Maybe you should be "Liber

Well, if you're going to go that route, the contractors don't build anything either, they just arrange/rearrange the materials they're given. By that standard, nothing's ever been built on Earth, we're just assembling stuff left over from the last local supernova.

I was kind of thinking about that same rabbit but going down a different hole.

If the same logic is applied to home building, you coukd say ghe home wasn't built by the builders but assembled too. Nature grows the lumber and a mill makes it useful. Companies make shingles and sinks and so on, all the builder does is install them or directs domeobe else to do it. Yet we say fhe home was built not assembled. The GP is limiting the definitiion of build way too much

Well duh! Wouldn't you do the same thing? I mean, it's not like the government creates jobs or anything.

For those not getting the sarcasm, one side of the political spectrum repeatedly trots out the mantra that the government does not create jobs, yet, using this situation, quite clearly the government does create jobs or these Congressman wouldn't be trying to prevent layoffs at these companies if they were to lose government business from the space program.

Well duh! Wouldn't you do the same thing? I mean, it's not like the government creates jobs or anything.

For those not getting the sarcasm, one side of the political spectrum repeatedly trots out the mantra that the government does not create jobs, yet, using this situation, quite clearly the government does create jobs or these Congressman wouldn't be trying to prevent layoffs at these companies if they were to lose government business from the space program.

The argument is that the government doesn't create wealth. While you can look at defense contractors as the government creating jobs it is at best intellectually dishonest. The government doesn't create wealth, it acquires from other parties and redistributes it to further parties. Those first parties, from which the taxes are collected, would have been otherwise able to use those tax monies which would have stimulated other businesses and created the need and opportunities for jobs. Now these specific jobs probably wouldn't exist and the jobs that would be here may not be as well paying but in a climate where we consider part time jobs replacing full time positions to be job creation, I hardly think that matters.

Remember, the instant the government spends money, it vanishes down a black hole, disappearing entirely without any positive effect on the economy. The government paying companies to make things for them in no way creates any value whatsoever, nope. Better to just cut taxes because, as everyone knows, demand follows supply and not the other way around!

Republicans often DO make the argument that the "government doesn't create jobs".

While I don't agree with their claim, you are seriously misrepresenting their point. They aren't saying that the government doesn't hire people - that would be very stupid. They argue that the government has to take resources from someone else in order to pay that person. Those resources could be used otherwise in the economy, such that you are eliminating a job's worth of economic activity in order to create a job.

Boeing doesn't create wealth either.

They most certainly do! Every generation of plane that they have created is more efficient, safer, and easier to maintain than previous generations. The plane is a tool for other people to use to make money.

Where I part ways with the "government doesn't create jobs" people is that the view is too extreme. You can look hard and find instances of government creating wealth. They also completely ignore the fact that corporations are in fact granted a charter by the government and have very strong ties to the government. Their argument would better be stated as: in general, private enterprise is more efficient than government. That isn't as sexy, though. But don't completely dismiss their point, and if you do don't try to do it by playing games with language.

Printing it is the same thing. It devalues everyone's currency a little bit, which is no different than taxing except that it is not at all progressive.

I'd like to figure out how these companies that are hiring people are doing so without obtaining that money from someone else.

In commerce, money is just a stand-in for barter. You hand over your money in exchange for something else - usually something that you could not economically produce yourself. The best private-market analogy to government is probably insurance - you pay for some protection should you fall down the social ladder or get invaded. The government also builds road

Anyway, I think that all Republicans - and for that matter Libertarians - would not object at all if the government restricted itself to umpire. I hear very few objections to even huge intrusions in the private market; limited liability and intellectual property are these massive government regulations that have profound effects on the market, yet you don't hear much objection except from the most ideological Libertarians. Most Libertarians all but throw a "ri

Yes. The argument is that if you call a large organization a government, it doesn't create wealth, whereas if you call it a corporation, it magically does... by acquiring money from some parties and redistributing it to further parties.

Yeah, the magic of labels.

That and the fact that the government collects that money by force, while the corporation has to give you enough value to make you voluntarily trade money for their product. Slightly different incentive structure there.

In the end, the same amount of money is in the economy, and the same amount is in the hands of other businesses, all that's changed is which specific businesses have it, what work is actually done, and who benefits from the work done.

That is all just ballocks. The number people care about when they buy a blanket is "how much money do I hand to the shopkeep." Yes, sales tax are "collected on behalf of the government". This is a distinction without a difference. If I collect 10 bucks for a blanket and send 80 cents to the local government it doesn't matter what you label it. If my cost of goods sold is $8 and 0.80 goes to local taxes that leaves a buck twenty for me. Of which the state and federal government take another bite - 13%

It would be amazing if Lockheed-Martin simply developed an advanced attack fighter and offered it up for sale to any government who wanted it. The problem with the F-35 program is that it has precisely a single customer, the U.S. government. This is really a monopsony [wikipedia.org] situation where potentially many people could sell stuff to the government, but there is only one buyer.

If, on the other hand, every state's Air National Guard had the option of spending their portion of their military budget as they saw fit (to give an example), at least there would be multiple customers potentially for this airplane and be assured that they could sell at least a few of them. Or if the government of America wasn't so paranoid about potential future enemies of America getting advanced aircraft (like how Howard Hughes designed the Japanese Zeros that bombed Pearl Harbor), they might have other customers there as well.

Luckily for SpaceX, they have other customers for their launch services. So much so that over half of their manifest is for non-government contracts, not to mention about half of their launches to date have also been for non-government customers too. That is what makes the situation with SpaceX so different, and why ULA is having a hard time trying to compete with SpaceX to the point they are encouraging congressmen to write silly letters like the one mentioned in the original post. The European Space Agency, explicitly Arianespace (the manufacturer of the ESA's launch fleet), is definitely in a panic trying to figure out how to compete against SpaceX and win back the customers now lost to SpaceX. If they don't change, the ESA will be stuck launching only payloads for European governments alone... but that is precisely the situation that ULA sits in right now in terms of only flying payloads for the U.S. government.

I would note that all of the other countries buying the F-35 (a stupid proposition in my book BTW) all do so contingent upon the U.S. government buying them. I'll also point out that Lockheed-Martin is not funding the design and construction of this airplane. It is simply the U.S. taxpayers alone. If anything, it is the U.S. government who is in effect offering its design to other countries... as a means to offset the development cost.

If the F35 is obsolete, all other aircraft in the world are also. To make an aircraft which is not already obsolete requires trillions of dollars. No one has come up with a way to build a war winning aircraft which is not complicated and expensive.

If the SpaceX rocket is obsolete(or too trouble-prone), all other rockets in the world are also. To make a space rocket which is not already obsolete (or too trouble-prone) requires trillions of dollars*. No one has come up with a way to build a practical space rocket which is not complicated and expensive.

*actually if you build the thing on your own instead of doing things the "right" way per the US gov't you can drop that by a few orders of magnitude.

The Su35 is an obsolete design. It may be new, but it is based on a very old aircraft design. It would be like saying that the F15E is state of the art. And, the Su35 is so great that no one but the Russians even want it. And the Russians only have 34. There are about 150 F35s completed or being finished.

All three are Republicans that claim to want "small government", yet they insist that private contractors abide by the same rules that government agencies do - even when the contractors are cheaper and safer than than the government agencies last attempt.

Republicans are as much about red tape and regulation as anybody else -- the only difference is what they think they should be free from regulation, and what they feel they should be able to impose on others through regulation.

They want to ensure business and (their) religion is protected, and everybody else is on their own.

There is nothing wrong with being an extremist. Most problems in America are caused by the centrists, not the extremists.Extreme right: Cut spending to equal revenue.Extreme left: Raise revenue to equal spending.Center: Continue to give everyone whatever they want, and borrow money from China to pay for it.

Which is why we have the Tea Party now. People were fed up with the Republicans... even other Republicans.

That said, the media have done a great job painting every extremist as the face of the Tea Party (even when that extremist isn't even part of the Tea Party.)

The Tea Party was originally formed by a combination of Republicans and Democrats who were fed up with both parties. The point was to build a party that was all about less spending, smaller government, balanced budgets, debt reduction, etc. It then became co-opted by Republicans and enough right-wing extremists to drive away most moderates and all right-leaning Democrats.

They want to ensure business and (their) religion is protected, and everybody else is on their own.

Unfortunately, that is kinda the point of a representative, or at least a major element. Getting the best deals and most support for their constituents. In a way this is small government in action, loyalty to their state rather then the country. If they can protect companies in their state at the expense of companies in other states, that benefits their people.

It stands for RINO - these clowns are being bought off by ULA (http://www.ulalaunch.com/) just like the bought and paid for dems (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000057934) . SpaceX is threat for those that suckle at the big government teat...

All three are Republicans that claim to want "small government", yet they insist that private contractors abide by the same rules that government agencies do - even when the contractors are cheaper and safer than than the government agencies last attempt.

" in order to protect established industries in their own states"That is what Congress people do. Nobody wants to see nice high paying jobs to go bye bye.Heck my Democratic congress person fought long and hard to make the Navy keep the USS Forrestal when the Navy wanted to scrape it to save money. The reason was simple jobs in Jacksonville.A congress person doing this is not evil but a part of the give and take of government. That is why mission control was moved to Houston from Florida. It is expected tha

Obviously these people have read something besides 1984 and are trying to stop the logic next steps.

When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere. -- Lazarus Long

"...ranging from &ldquo;multiple&rdquo; helium leaks..."It's not a balloon, it's a rocket. I'm not aware of them using Helium, though they are know to use huge quantities of Liquid Hydrogen.

"...release all anomalies and mishap information, un-redacted, so that Congress can gain a better understanding of what has occurred and ensure full transparency..."Do you mean like you have all other PRIVATE CONTRACTORS do? Oh wait, you don't. Of course, as stated, no huge system is ever without issues. The real question is are they fixed, and in a timely manner. In the case of SpaceX, yes. And by the way, SpaceX hasn't had 3 different crews killed in accidents, unlike NASA.

"Again, because the vehicles in question were funded by American taxpayer dollars, there should be no issue in making this report publicly available,"Wrong again douchebag, they were funded by Elon Musk, not the government.

As to the question I posed in the subject line, I don't actually know the answer, but I suspect it's "all of the above".

When the problem relates to what they get the money for you will have a point. But as long as the company is spending its own money on the product the government should have no say so in it as long as it is not breaking the law.

"an epidemic of anomalies" ha ha, good one. Falcon 9 had 11/11 primary mission successes on the first 11 flights. That sort of a track record is very, very rare. Space Shuttle did it. What other launcher had the same record? Never mind the overall cost of achieving it. If one adjusts for successes per dollar of development costs, Falcon 9 will have everyone beat for a long, long time, if they keep at it.

I'm pretty sure at this rate the Falcon 9 beats every other space delivery system in cost by far (both development and recurring) and reliability (so far at least).

Granted they've had the entire history of space exploration as a guide towards their design...but then again any other company in the space game has access to at least the same information. I'm pretty sure the contractors and companies that built the shuttle and other rockets actually have significantly MORE information than is publicly available on top of it.

Yet who do we see actually DOING this? Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. It amazes me that the 'leadership' in the US can't understand that basic axiom.

Great list, thanks for doing the research, but I don't think you can pin Apollo 1 on the Saturn 1B at all -- that fire was 100% due to faults in the payload, the Apollo Command Module. In your list I would say the most impressive run is the Saturn 1 -- ten out of ten successes back in the old days, first launch in 1961, and they were using a very early model liquid hydrogen upper stage in the last six flights. If you count the Saturn 1B as just an upgraded Saturn 1, then it was 19 straight successes -- 19

I think you will find that those Republicans have industries that compete with Space X in their districts. This means Space X is doing so well they feel the industries in their own districts will lose money.
Perhaps you could appeal to Republicans who don't have competing space industries in their district. But complaining about this as if its just republicans doing this is disingenuous. Politicians do this to give industries in their state and edge all the time.

Phil Plait:
"That’s why this whole thing looks to me to be a transparent attempt from members of our Congress to hinder a privately owned company that threatens their own interests. I’ll note that Boeing (the major SLS contractor) has a big plant in Alabama, Brooks’ (and Shelby’s) home state, and United Launch Alliance has its HQ in Colorado, home to Gardner and Coffman (it’s even in Coffman’s district). This sounds more like they’re trying to protect their own turf more than honestly wanting transparency from SpaceX."

Those senators are doing exactly what they should be doing: protecting the interests of their constituents. If SpaceX continues to be effective and successful, then Boeing and ULA will start losing money, and that means they'll start cutting back on employment at those factories, which are in the jurisdiction of those senators. Which means unemployed voters, and large amounts of unemployed voters trump any economic benefit that cheaper spaceflight may bring. Especially when we're talking working class people who are unable to migrate to new jobs/locations. Before that happens, a lot of the potentially affected voters (and their employers) are hiring lobbyists to advocate on their behalf to stop SpaceX by any means necessary. This is exactly how democracy functions, and those senators are doing their jobs--as much as we may dislike it.

It's high time we started calling out these "representatives of the people" who are really nothing of the sort. Republican or Democrat, nobody in Washington seems to be concerned for the welfare of the American PEOPLE. They only seem interested in doing whatever the lobbyists who line their pockets tell them to do.

At the risk of defending them (because really, I don't like these guys any more than you do), the are representatives of the people -who elected them-. That means the people in their district, so protecting businesses that bring money to those districts (and thus to the people they represent) isn't -completely- without merit.

Please note that I'm not advocating that they protect those businesses at the expense of their people by loosening regulations or anything like that. I'm just saying that in -this insta

Gotta second this--there is no such thing as The American People. There is no singular voice of authority and righteousness that has coalesced from a totalitarian and enlightened gestalt of minds. Rather, there are the American Peoples, many of whom bear conflicting interests and actively fight their disagreements out using the political theater. Those Senators are representing people who will be directly harmed by SpaceX's success. Those people and their employers have hired lobbyists to advocate on their

Compare Space-X's launch manifest from a year ago [archive.org] with their current launch manifest. [spacex.com] They're six months to a year behind their launch schedule. There were supposed to be three Space-X ISS resupply flights this year, #4, #5, and #6. Flight #4 is currently scheduled for September. There are five commercial customers waiting for their scheduled 2014 launches.

Some of this isn't Space-X's fault, and some of it is. All these are Falcon-9 launches, some with the Dragon capsule. No major new hardware is involve

LOL.
I hate to point this out to you, but it took Boeing/L-Mart/ULA well over a decade to get their launches for Atlas V/Delta IV going on schedule.
And SpaceX being even 12 months behind is actually pretty darn good.
SpaceX is moving at a rate of 1-2 launches / month, which is better than what ULA does.

In the letter, they keep going on about anomalies. They don't understand what those are.

Anomalies are not (necessarily) defects, or errors, or problems. Anomalies are deviations from the norm - something that isn't perfect.

I tried to find an example Space Shuttle mission that I could use to compare, but I can't even find a comprehensive list of "anomalies". I can find rollbacks, where the problem required bringing the vehicle back to the assembly building, but I can't find a list even of countdown stops.

Rockets are expensive. When you see a potential problem, you fix it even if there's a 90% chance of it being fine anyways. You don't take risks. For SpaceX, their caution has paid off in a near-100% success rate (one secondary payload was lost after an engine failed on CRS-1. NASA forbade the second burn to insert the secondary payload because the engine failure had reduced the odds of success to 95%).

Further, these are civilian launch vehicles, not missiles. A missile, you expect to be high-reliability, low-maintenance and weather-tolerant. You can't cancel a battle just because a hurricane is coming and you're not sure it can stand up to the wind. But these are civilian rockets - the increased payload and decreased cost you get from not having to battle-harden everything is worth the cost of having to delay the launch if something looks a bit iffy and they want to make sure it's not going to break and wreck your multi-million-dollar payload.

Oh, and then they somehow argue that having several billion dollars worth of flights sold is a bad thing. They frame it as "SpaceX is too slow to keep up with demand", when really it's "the demand is too high for SpaceX to keep up". They have missions sold out to 2019, and on many of them the payload isn't even ready yet. Replace SpaceX with even a perfect ideal, with an infinite supply of ready-to-launch rockets, and those seven Iridium-NEXT launches won't be happening until the actual payloads are done, the next five ISS resupply missions won't happen until the ISS needs the supplies, and the Falcon 9 Heavy test launch won't happen until that rocket is ready.

I tried to find an example Space Shuttle mission that I could use to compare, but I can't even find a comprehensive list of "anomalies".

NASA has all the shuttle anomaly reports available. Some of them are pretty long.

Just to take the first mission as an example, the body flap went outside design limits during launch, and the commander later said that, if he'd known that at the time, he would have bailed out rather than go to orbit and risk re-entry. The toilet didn't work. Tiles fell off various parts of the exterior. The re-entry software had an incorrect aerodynamic model, requiring them to fly it manually through part of the re-entry. Th

Both congressmen Coffman and Gardner have Koch Industries in their top-10 at 7 and 5 respectively. At first, this didn't mean much to me, but I found the coincidence intriguing so I dug deeper. Koch Industries purchased Molex, Inc. in December for $7.2 billion. Among other things, Molex makes wiring and connectors for defense and aerospace. Is that enough to push a couple of congress critters to voice concerns about Space X? I don't know, but following the money is usually a good first step in determining motive.

Mike Coffman R-CO 6th District, Mo Brooks R-AL 5th District, and Cory Gardner R-CO 4th District. Like to talk about the evil big govt until they start to sing the praises for big govt to build their own rockets. Yet Govt has always used contractors to build rockets. What a bunch of pathetic hypocrites. And the great unwashed keep voting these clowns back in.

Don't complain about it here. Don't argue about Republicans vs. Democrats on a forum. That's useless. Reach out. Make yourself heard. If you're a constituent of these guys, ruin their names a little bit.... Talk to your neighbors about them, and then TELL THEM YOU'RE DOING IT. Representative democracy only works if you make the representatives listen to you.

I listed the DC phone numbers, but you can go to the bottom of their web pages and call their home offices too. Ask them why they're trying to bury one of America's leading space companies in red tape. Ask them why they appear to be using big government against a private company. Ask them how they justify that as Republicans. Ask them if they were paid to do so by large companies.:D

Right now, there is a major contest going on with NASA. Basically, SpaceX, Boeing, and SNC are battling to win a contract to provide human launches for NASA. Interestingly, this was to go to all 3 companies, but it was the GOP that insisted that it be narrowed down to 1 company. Now, they are nervous that the obvious winner is SpaceX and are going to great lengths to block this.
Hopefully, SpaceX will win this contest, because I have no doubt that the house GOP will change their minds and suddenly fund all 3 companies.
Sadly, the corruption and treason runs very deep in the GOP.

If your own money is at stake, you approach risk management in a very different way than when someone else's money is at stake.

Public funds for development results in a very different sort of risk management than private funds for risk management.

The typical argument for public funding of development is that the risk management under private funding is to, basically, not bother taking the risk at all -- and that therefore the public must.

Well... this has as its unspoken assumption that the downstream benefit is so great that it is clearly justifiable to take the risk. OK, let's go with that assumption and then let us further ask: Why is it that the capital markets are failing in their primary reason for existence: To manage investment risk?

The folks arguing for public funding of development need to provide answers for that question taking the form either of, a renunciation of the primary principle of capitalism -- since the public becomes more competent at investment the less risk there is -- or, proposals to correct the statutory regime under which investment is made so that the capital markets function properly.

In my role promoting private over public investment in launch services development, I was aware that there was, indeed, a capital market failure that needed to be fixed through statutory changes in the tax system. Yet I proceeded to promote private over public investment. Why? Because in the foregoing discussion of trade offs between private vs public risk management there goes unspoken the risk that a positive feedback system can easily develop where political action is funded by tax dollars, however indirect. This positive feedback system results in a body politic that excludes from political influence those who are not receiving tax dollars -- such as inventors in the garages who are trying to bring even incremental improvements to the market. Moreover, this lack of political influence is compounded by the fact that such inventors are seen as business risks by those whose political action is predicated on the technical ignorance of politicians -- hence government funds not only fund political action, but actively suppress improvement.

There is simply no way out of this mess but to, first, turn off the funding sources if at all possible, so that it is possible to then address the real underlying capital market failure that results in lack of investment in viable technologies of great value.

The role guys like Musk should be taking on here is to point out the capital market failure and recommend appropriate fixes in the statutory environment so that there is no place for the public sector rent-seeking of government funded political agencies, posing as technology companies, to hide.

One year after I gave my testimony before Congress, I did make a proposal for just such a reform in the tax and regulatory code in the form of a white paper [polyonymo.us] which I sent to various think-tanks in the beltway. The problem is those think-tanks are, themselves, now funded by the same positive feedback loop that actively supports existing cash flows and their expansion -- which includes avoiding any reforms that would correct the capital market failures to which technosocialist political agencies point to justify their receipt of taxpayer money.

Here's what Musk needs to promote:

Replace all taxes on economic activity with a single tax on net liquidation value of assets. This is rational in that those assets enjoy government protection in a manner similar to the protection provided by property insurance corporations. In other words, taxes become a service fee equivalent to the i

I keep hearing this nonsense, and I can't help but imagine that it's coming straight from the ULA puppets. Nobody is given any free passes. They are contracted to deliver stuff to orbit, not to build rockets for the government. The safety and reliability standards are of not much use if you're being paid (or not) for service. The only ones hurting if a Falcon blows up are SpaceX and cargo insurers: the former won't get paid, the latter will have to pay up. That's all there's to it.

Well, he is not going to. We have several ACs running around that obviously work for ULA and are desperate for their jobs. GothMolly is one of those POS that will continue to troll and astroturf.
In the end, if these ppl are Americans, they are traitors in that they will lie about other companies/ppl to protect their jobs and continue to push BILLIONS to Putin.

Yes, a SECONDARY load that was not to go into production was not placed in the correct orbit. However, it was because NASA said that F9 could not correct for an issue.
In addition, the company decided to continue with SpaceX because they had done such a good job.

But, it was NASA who wouldn't let them deploy it, due to safety limits placed on ISS support missions. The company who contracted them to launch the satellite knew that was a possibility before the launch, and were willing to take the risk. They gambled on getting a discount on the launch, and the risk didn't pay off. That isn't Spacex' fault. The Falcon 9 could have done both, but doing so would have violated NASA's huge safety margin.

What satellite blew up on spaceX. And if spaceX is using private money to develop the rocket where is that kicking taxpayers? also thanks to the stupidity of the patent system not everything developed and paid for by the taxpayers can be used without paying other private companies.

| So, taxpayers take it in the ass three times, once to pay for ULA launches, once to pay for Musk's protest, and ULA's counter protest, and then the third time to pay for satellites the SpaceX blows up.

And save so so so so so so so so so much more when SpaceX's rockets cost so much less, and when there's a competitive market instead of a monopoly for the next 40 years.

. ..more importantly why is anyone listening to people from a division of government with a 16%!!!!! approval rating. ..

Because crappy approval rating or not they are still the legislative branch of our government. That means that they are the ones who actually make the laws. The President only has the power to execute laws and other decisions of Congress* and the Supreme Court only has the power to interpret those laws (part of that power, however, means they could decide a law violates the Constitution and is unenforcable, but in such a case they are still interpreting law).

Actually the president has lots of power outside the laws congress makes. He can veto as you stated. He can pardon people of crimes against those laws. He can direct how money is spent at the micro level below what congress states. He can appoint people who will make decisions on how the law is implemented.

Yeah. Like I said, he's not completely powerless. It is simply that the office has less power than Congress' (though again, it isn't divided up). I didn't really mean to turn this into a major discussion of Presidential power. It was more an answer to 'why do people listen to Congress?'. Because we have to.

That first guy doesn't exist unless he's had others make the mistakes for him, taken credit for the work of others or kept quiet about the development process.That bridge of a new type that doesn't fall down was not designed flawlessly overnight. The nice thing with engineering is we can make a lot of mistakes on paper and fix them before construction commences.